Disposed

Anil Purushottam Kangutkar and 97 Others v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014WP/1594/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Bombay High Court directed the State Government to decide on a recommendation to declare specific land as a slum within 16 weeks. The court held that it could not quash the earlier tribunal order due to delay but directed the authorities to act on the report submitted.

What did the court decide?

The State Government and Competent Authority were directed to take a decision on the recommendation dated 19.10.2013 within 16 weeks.

Anil Purushottam Kangutkar and 97 Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1594-13

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1594 OF 2013

¶6

Anil Purshottam Kangutkar & Ors. ..Petitioners.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Sameer K. Sawant for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. J.G. Reddy, A.G.P. for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2014

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18^th August, 1993 passed by the Deputy Collector (E & C), Kurla, Mumbai and seeking appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondents to declare the subject land as a slum.

¶16

1/3

¶17

wp1594-13

¶18

The brief facts are that pursuant to an order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R) Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.132 of 1981, the property situated in CTS No.217, Survey No.44/5 of Hariali Village, Vikhroli (East) Mumbai-83, the same was allowed and order passed by the Slum Authority declaring the said land as a slum was set aside. Thereafter, the order dated 18^th August, 1983 was passed by the Deputy Collector ( (E& C), Kurla. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Writ Petition is filed by some of the slum dwellers challenging the said order. In the said Writ Petition, direction has been given to the respondents to take a decision expeditiously. It is submitted however that no decision has been taken so far by the respondents.

¶19

The petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and directions for quashing the order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Tribunal Areas (I.C. & R.) Tribunal, Mumbai. It will not be possible for this Court to consider the said request on the ground of delay and latches. Admittedly, in our view, it is always open to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondents on account of the subsequent events which have taken place after the said impugned order is passed by the Maharashtra Slum Tribunal Areas (I.C.& R.) Tribunal, Mumbai.

¶20

2/3

¶21

wp1594-13

¶22

Secondly, this Court has already by order dated 20^th September, 2004 in Writ Petition No.685 of 1994 was pleased to direct the respondents to decide the issue whether the said area should be declared as a slum or not. We are informed that pursuant to such directions, an inquiry was held and the report has been submitted by the Additional Collector (Encroachment / Removal) and competent authority and he has made recommendation to the State Government that the said area may be declared as a slum. It appears that the Government has not taken any decision on the said report dated 19^th October, 2013. The State Government and Competent Authority may take into consideration the said recommendation and report submitted by the Deputy Collector and take a decision in accordance with law within 16 weeks from today.

¶23

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶24

3/3

Anil Purushottam Kangutkar and 97 Others v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Purushottam Kangutkar and 97 Others v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Ram Glass through Its Proprietor Shri. Annasaheb Ashok Kajale Vs Shri. Ramchandra Tukaram Maske and Anr.

Shree Ram Glass through Its Proprietor Shri. Annasaheb Ashok Kajale Vs Shri. Ramchandra Tukaram Maske and Anr.

Happy Home School for the Blind and Ors. Vs the Commissioner of Disabilities, Director of Social Welfare and Ors.

Rachana Sansad'S Academy of Architecture and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Arshiya International Ltd. Vs Sicom Limited

Mahesh Kothari Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bombay Stock Exchange Limited.